GWB's Second Amendment Record

[Brett Bellmore]

Add to the "CON" column:

3. Had his AG successfully urge the Supreme court to refuse certiori for 2nd amendment challenges. Ok, maybe they would have refused it anyway, but Ashcroft didn't have to ASK them to do the wrong thing.

4. Had his AG defend, to his best ability, all existing gun control laws that are challenged. And, no, Ashcroft is NOT legally obligated to defend laws he believes are unconstitutional. Let alone do a good job of it. It's close to SOP for the AG to deliberately do a bad job of "defending" laws the administration finds offensive, and not unheard of for him to hire somebody to defend laws he can't in good conscience defend.

5. Permits Minetta to continue sabotoging the armed pilots program. Even after being warned about it by Congress.

 

[Publicola]

BR,

iI disagree: not every Right enumerated in the Constitution should be subject to restriction. W/o getting into too much detail as long as the Right in question doesn't involve the disregard of another's Rights then there's no justification for restriction. Child Porn involes the display of photographs of chidlren in sexual activities. Under a certain age kids aren't capable of rationally consetning to such behavior, hence it steps on the kids' Rights (albeity unenumerated Rights but Rights nontheless).

& since gun control is 99% prior restraint (i.e. prohibiting ownership or possession regardless of action or intent) then I don't see how the exercise of the Right to Arms can interfere with someone else's Right. Shooting a ugn walking down mainstreet? That can be restricted becaue it steps on the Rights of others 9i.e. it endangers their life &/or property). Owning a Mac-10 & carrying it under your jacket? Nope, doesn't make the cut since it doesn't harm anyone. If you define Rights as not including actions which trample someone else's Rights then it makes a little more sense as opposed to drawing a line between two things which you define both as a Right.

& I get the "enemy of the good" thing. But from my perspective I generally see it as I described: an excuse not to put forth the extra effort. But I don't think any stride for perfection can be called innoble. Impractical perhaps, but the nobility is still there.

Most of us can agree that no state should make you pay a fee or beg permission for carrying a firearm without harmful intent (however if you plan to murder someone you should pay the approriate license fees) but the justification used to support laws that provide for just that instead of trying for a law or amendment that would make carry legal sans permit is that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Again, from my perspective, this often seems not like an admonition that the goal is out of reach & we shoudl settle for as close as we can get to it, but rather it turns the meaning around to make in practice the good the mortal enemy of the perfect. Neither of our views on this phrase is universal as there are some instances where I would agree with yours & there's probably a few where you'd agree with mine. It's just that in my experience it's used as a justification for mediocrity far more often than to keep overzealous intentions from resulting in an outright loss.

Wingedmonkey,

What makes you think the House would have stopped it?

 

[Thumper]

3. Had his AG successfully urge the Supreme court to refuse certiori for 2nd amendment challenges. Ok, maybe they would have refused it anyway, but Ashcroft didn't have to ASK them to do the wrong thing.

I know you don't agree, Brett, but I'm certainly glad he did. KABA's case was fine, but the makeup of the Court left us on VERY shaky ground. Some of us believe that Ashcroft did us a huge favor there.

 

[txgho1911]

I like these grades

inadequate+bush=true
unacceptable+kerry=true
unatainable+? libertarian, constitution, green=true

No where from any state or party do I see or would agree with:
adequate
perfect

Bush will sign what congress puts in front of him on his desk.
Months and years of the boss calling division heads onto the carpet will cause 1% attrition due to those who resign for personal reasons.
I we elected a congress that would never infring apon or decide allone what law to creat and set in front of the president would the machine not be so littered with disasterouse wrenches.

Do not forget what else the election is all about.
There are lefties and rinos in congress. There are also numerous people to replace on RNC.
If you want some real change because we have not had enough then you will have to work for it. I would like to vote this year once in Nov. Not at every oportunity from the rooftops. Others may mistake me for someone I am not.

 

[garrettwc]

Why doesn't this stop the PRK, and other states, from mandating the registration of all firearms??

The Tenth amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Although we all know that registration is a facilitating step to consfiscation, it has not been successfully changed on 2nd Amendment grounds. Therefore, it is up to the states to do as they choose until the Supreme Court says otherwise.

Getting back to the main topic of the thread, GWB's voting record is only part of the story. If the schemes of the various states do make it to the Supreme Court, do you want it heard by a panel appointed by Bush or Kerry?